Houser’s allegations rejected by DOI

According to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), scientific misconduct allegations filed last year by former Bureau of Reclamation Scientific Integrity Officer Paul Houser are “not warranted” and have been flatly rejected by the agency’s investigation. In a rebuttal statement Houser claims the investigation was bogus.

According to the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI), scientific misconduct allegations filed last year by former Bureau of Reclamation Scientific Integrity Officer Paul Houser are “not warranted” and have been flatly rejected by the agency’s investigation. In a rebuttal statement Houser claims the investigation was bogus.

In February 2012, Houser filed a scientific misconduct complaint regarding a press release and the accompanying summary of key conclusions drawn from 50 scientific studies into the effects of removing four Klamath River dams. This claim of misconduct was based on his belief that a lack of discussion of possible negative impacts and uncertainties related to dam removal indicated an intentional effort to mislead the public.

Houser also alleged that his superiors retaliated against him by limiting his travel, putting him on probationary status and ultimately firing him after he made his concerns known to them and several other federal officials. In December 2012, he reached a settlement with the government over that charge, though both parties refuse to divulge the details of the settlement.

In a letter dated Jan. 29, DOI Suzette Kimball informed Houser that “through the evaluation of your allegations … and measured against the requirements for a finding of misconduct as defined in Section 3.5M (3), I found no merit in the charges. The allegations presented in this complaint are considered closed.”

The cited section 3.5M (3) of DOI’s Departmental Manual states that a finding of misconduct requires “there be a significant departure from accepted practices of the relevant scientific and scholarly community,” and “the misconduct be committed intentionally, knowingly or recklessly and the allegation be proved by a preponderance of evidence.”

Houser asserted that the Sept. 21, 2011 summary that accompanied the press release “intentionally distorts and generally presents a biased view of the Klamath River dam removal benefits. It intends to present only the positive, without the uncertainties or negatives.”

DOI hired an independent contractor to assemble an “expert” panel of four scientist to review the documents and Houser’s allegations, and make recommendations to DOI on their merit.

In regards to the claim that the press release was biased because it offered only positive findings on dam removal, the panel said, “it is not the case that only positive impacts were included in the summary. Examples include loss of reservoir recreation, and risks of flooding as well as cost.”

After reviewing “numerous” other similar press releases from DOI and its constituent bureaus and agencies the panel says it found that the documents “… rarely if ever mention uncertainty. Hence we find that there is nothing unusual about the scope or style of the press release regarding Klamath dam removal.”

The panel found that the summary of key conclusions was clearly not intended to stand on its own but specifically points the public to the larger set of 50 scientific studies which do explore positive and negative aspects of dam removal as well as the inherent scientific uncertainties.

Page 2 of 2 - “In accepted professional practice, a summary is not regarded as a freestanding document,” said the panel, “but is a representation of the full report that it summarizes. Where there is a difference or gap, it is the information and intent of the full report that prevails.”

According to the panel, “While Dr. Houser may feel that more detail should have been provided, we believe that this is a matter of opinion, rather than evidence of deliberate obfuscation of the facts.”

The panel did take issue with one aspect of the summary, stating, “The source of the statement that the removal of dams is expected to increase the median annual production of adult Chinook salmon by 81.4 percent is unclear. Furthermore, the accuracy of the estimate implied by 81.4 percent is misleading. By any estimation, it could not be accurate to tenths of a percent. This is an example of false precision.” The panel suggested that DOI employees be made to better understand the potential public impact of false precision in future publications.

In her letter to Houser, Kimball said she did not “… find evidence that the use of a precise number was done recklessly or with the intent to falsify or fabricate data to manipulate the public review process,” though she did not address the unknown origin of the number.

Houser’s rebuttal

Houser has released an eight-page rebuttal document in which he states, “I maintain that Interior’s handling of my complaint is misguided and turns the department’s scientific integrity process on its head.”

Houser alleges that DOI, among other things, did not evaluate the full scope of his complaint; failed to conduct an actual investigation; used circular reasoning as the basis for dismissing his complaint; made up the rules as they went along and convened an unqualified and conflicted panel (though he refers to the panel as “unidentified”).

“The end result,” Houser says, “is that my scientific integrity complaint has been dismissed without being fully investigated or even cogently considered, and continues the department’s record of never finding itself in violation of its own scientific integrity policy.”

He concludes his rebuttal saying, “The bottom line is that through a very narrow panel charge and through its own de-scoping, the important aspects of my allegation were not evaluated, and no actual investigation was done. So, it seems my allegation really has not yet been addressed, and I don’t expect that it will ever be addressed by DOI.”